The role of a judge in society is one of profound trust and responsibility. They are the arbiters of justice, expected to uphold the law with impartiality, integrity, and the highest standards of ethical conduct. When a judge deviates from these principles, the very foundation of the judicial system is shaken, and public confidence erodes. Such was the case with Judge Scott Steiner of the Orange County Superior Court in California, whose disciplinary case unveiled a disturbing pattern of misconduct that led to a public censure by the California Commission on Judicial Performance.
A Troubling Narrative Unfolds
The details of Judge Steiner’s transgressions paint a concerning picture of a public official who flagrantly disregarded the solemnity of his office and the ethical boundaries expected of him. The commission’s findings revealed several deeply troubling instances:
- Abuse of Chambers for Personal Indiscretions: Perhaps the most egregious aspect of Judge Steiner’s misconduct was his use of judicial chambers for personal and inappropriate encounters. He engaged in sexual activity on multiple occasions with two different women. What makes this particularly egregious is the power dynamic involved: one of the women had been his intern, and the other was an attorney. Both were former students in law school classes he had taught. This blurs the lines between professional guidance and personal exploitation, creating an environment ripe for coercion and a profound breach of professional decorum. The sanctity of judicial chambers, a place meant for legal deliberation and the administration of justice, was defiled by these actions.
- Improper Influence and Favoritism: The misconduct extended beyond the chambers. Judge Steiner actively attempted to leverage his position to benefit one of the women. He contacted the District Attorney’s Office to follow up on a job recommendation he had written for her, and even expressed irritation when she was not hired. This direct attempt to influence a hiring decision based on a personal relationship, rather than merit, is a clear abuse of power and demonstrates a lack of understanding of appropriate judicial conduct.
- Compromised Impartiality in Case Assignments: Further undermining the integrity of his office, Judge Steiner improperly assigned cases to other judges after disqualifying himself from cases involving one of the women. While recusal is necessary when a conflict of interest exists, the method of handling these cases raised concerns about his judgment and adherence to proper procedures.
- Failure to Disqualify from Conflicts of Interest: The pattern of compromised impartiality continued with his failure to disqualify himself from cases involving a longtime friend and attorney. This indicates a consistent disregard for the principle that judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety, ensuring that all parties perceive the court as unbiased.
The Commission’s Stance and the Lingering Questions
The California Commission on Judicial Performance did not mince words in its assessment, stating that having consensual sexual activity in the courthouse was “the height of irresponsible and improper behavior by a judge.” Indeed, such actions are not merely a personal failing; they are a direct affront to the dignity of the judiciary and the trust placed in its members.
While the misconduct was considered severe enough for removal, Judge Steiner was ultimately allowed to remain on the bench after admitting to the findings and agreeing to the censure. This decision, while perhaps offering a path to rehabilitation, inevitably leaves some questions lingering about the proportionality of the punishment and the impact on public perception.
A Necessary Rebuke, But a Reminder of Vigilance
The public censure of Judge Scott Steiner was an absolutely necessary and appropriate response to his egregious misconduct. His actions demonstrated a profound lack of judgment, a disregard for ethical boundaries, and a serious abuse of the power and prestige of his judicial office. The fact that he used his chambers for sexual activity, and then attempted to exert influence on behalf of individuals with whom he had these relationships, speaks volumes about a disturbing conflation of his personal and professional lives.
The role of a judge is not merely a job; it is a sacred trust. It demands unwavering adherence to ethical principles, impartiality, and a commitment to upholding the law without personal bias or ulterior motives. Judge Steiner’s actions undermined these fundamental tenets and, in doing so, damaged the public’s faith in the judicial system.
While the decision not to remove him from the bench might be seen by some as lenient, the public censure serves as a stark warning and a critical reminder to all members of the judiciary about the immutable standards of conduct expected of them. This case underscores the vital importance of judicial oversight bodies like the California Commission on Judicial Performance in ensuring accountability and maintaining the integrity of our courts. The public must remain vigilant, and judicial bodies must continue to act decisively when such breaches of trust occur, to safeguard the principles of justice for all.